Product Review: Canon IS 8 x 20 (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

@kabsetz After looking at the 8x20, I would have somehow assumed that the 10x32 would share some of its improvements over the previous generation. So, without having ever looked through them (maybe wishful thinking), I thought they would have a considerably less amount of CA than my 12x36 IS III because:

• They're newer, and the 8x20 do it so well (yes, they're 8x, but also cheaper).
• They're only 10x, compared to my 12x36.

Hence my expectation. Have you used the 12x36 IS III in the past and are able to comment on the 10x32 regarding this? It's truly a pity that the 8x20 work so well in sharpness/contrast/CA (so that the image is way less soft than in the 12x36) but the 10x32 can't take advantage of those improvements. I remember reading Roger Vine's review of the 14x32, and his disappointment, but I would be inclined to think that some of what Vine experienced could be avoided by choosing 10x instead of 14x.

 

[Canip]

Have you used the 12x36 IS III in the past and are able to comment on the 10x32 regarding this?

I have (but sorry, I am not Kimmo).
I also found it surprising that the x32 models have so much CA. As to be expected, it gets worse with increasing magnification. While the correction of CA in the 10x32 can perhaps still be called „satisfactory“ (the 12x36 for me definitely deserves that label), in the 12x32 CA gets more prominent, and in the 14x32 I find it excessive for a quality binocular. Canon knows how to make good optics, and I have no clue why the optics engineers at Canon could not do more about CA in the x32 models.

 

[yarrellii]

@Canip Hehe, thank you very much for not being Kimmo 😀, and for having the experience and being able to answer.
I trust your experience, and I'm also surprised about the overall consensus that the last x32 IS series doesn't deal CA as well as the inexpensive x20 series. As you say, I can imagine how getting less CA on the 14x can be troublesome, but something more humble like a 10x32... I mean, there are many 10x32 at reasonable prices that do a decent/reasonable/good enough job at keeping CA at bay.
The 12x36 IS III that I have struck me by its amount of CA. I've learnt to live with it, and also to "handle it". I remember having an "aha moment" when I read what you wrote about CA on the 8x20 IS while "acquiring" the subject, but how it lessened once you stopped panning and got a stable view, since that's also my experience with the 12x36 IS III. I really like the proposition of the 10x32 IS:

• 3,2 exit pupil
• 10 x, not as powerful as 12x, but great with the boost of IS
• 10x should in theory allow for lower CA than my 12x36 IS III
• Being the "last and improved" generation of Canon IS, I would have expected a clear improvement

So to hear that the 10x32 is not as the 8x20 is a bit of a disappointment, taking into account that it's (retail price) nearly twice the price of the 12x36 IS III, and more than twice the price of the previous 10x30 IS II.

Canon is really a mystery. They are capable of amazing things (I mean, look at their expertise with cameras), but then, somehow, they manage to make incredible things like clearly subpar and lousy accessories, binoculars with the ergonomics of somewhere between a toaster and a fax machine, usability that seems to have been created by someone who never used a pair of binoculars in his/her life. It is as if there were different interest expressed to market an unfinished/unpolished product. Maybe a battle between R&D, plant engineers and budget controllers... and that's why we get the "strange" final products we get.

 

[Hermann]

I really like the proposition of the 10x32 IS:

• 3,2 exit pupil
• 10 x, not as powerful as 12x, but great with the boost of IS
• 10x should in theory allow for lower CA than my 12x36 IS III
• Being the "last and improved" generation of Canon IS, I would have expected a clear improvement

So to hear that the 10x32 is not as the 8x20 is a bit of a disappointment, taking into account that it's (retail price) nearly twice the price of the 12x36 IS III, and more than twice the price of the previous 10x30 IS II.

I had a long look at the 10x32, and decided it was not for me. CA is a killer as far as I'm concerned - and I'm not really all that susceptible to CA. The 8x20 is a lot better in that respect. And the 10x42 IS has essentially no CA. None whatsoever, at least I can't see any.

Canon is really a mystery. They are capable of amazing things (I mean, look at their expertise with cameras), but then, somehow, they manage to make incredible things like clearly subpar and lousy accessories, binoculars with the ergonomics of somewhere between a toaster and a fax machine, usability that seems to have been created by someone who never used a pair of binoculars in his/her life. It is as if there were different interest expressed to market an unfinished/unpolished product. Maybe a battle between R&D, plant engineers and budget controllers... and that's why we get the "strange" final products we get.

Well, you're right, the ergonomics of the Canons could be better. No doubt about it.

However, and I'm now only talking about the 8x20 and the 10x42 IS because they're the binoculars I'm familiar with, it's not THAT difficult to get used to them. The 8x20 is no problem at all IMO, it only takes a few days in the field to sort out how to hold them and where to put your fingers. The 10x42 IS is a bit more difficult, mainly because of their size and weight. I'm still in the process of getting things sorted out, mainly because I need to focus the 10x42 with my left hand (I need the right hand to switch on the stabiliser) and because I need to use them with a harness because of their weight. However, I'm getting there, slowly but surely. And what you get for the effort is an alpha view on a par with the best 10x binoculars - even without the stabiliser. As soon as you switch the stabiliser on, you get a view unsurpassed by ANY 10x binocular on the market.

In other words: I feel the effort of getting used to their peculiarities is well worth it ...

Hermann

 

[Patudo]

Many thanks (as always) for your write-ups, yarrelli. Just a quick question - when comparing detail/resolution between your 8x20 and the non-stabilized binoculars, were the latter used completely free-hand or did you do some tests in which the non-stabilized binos were supported (eg. elbows braced on your knees or a suitable surface)? From my experience of trying IS binoculars I'm sure the IS would still win out, but it would be interesting to have your sense of how much advantage the IS gives you when non-stabilized binoculars are steadied.

I have tried the 10x42 IS-L which is optically very good indeed - though I would say more in the Meostar/Conquest HD/Monarch HG bracket than the SF/SV/Noctivid. I noted my impressions in the Birdfair 2019 thread if you're interested. I've proved to my satisfaction that it would be a great tool for the most difficult situations but I've found that for probably 95% or more of the birding I do, it isn't absolutely essential to have that kind of rock steady image. I would definitely buy one for the right price but I haven't found one just yet and, I have to admit, since getting the 10x42 SE I haven't had much of an incentive to go looking.

Enjoy your birding,
Patudo

 

[Hermann]

I have tried the 10x42 IS-L which is optically very good indeed - though I would say more in the Meostar/Conquest HD/Monarch HG bracket than the SF/SV/Noctivid. I noted my impressions in the Birdfair 2019 thread if you're interested. I've proved to my satisfaction that it would be a great tool for the most difficult situations but I've found that for probably 95% or more of the birding I do, it isn't absolutely essential to have that kind of rock steady image. I would definitely buy one for the right price but I haven't found one just yet and, I have to admit, since getting the 10x42 SE I haven't had much of an incentive to go looking.

Do you know Kimmo's comparison of the resolution of the Nikon 10x42 SE and the Canon 10x42 IS? Makes fascinating reading: Canon 10x42 IS L Tripod vs hand-held vs IS testing

I've also got both the Nikon and the Canon, and I fully concur with Kimmo's results.

Hermann

 

[yarrellii]

The little 8x20 is really well baffled, with deeply recessed objective lenses. You have probably already noticed this, but it excels when viewing towards the sun. It also excels for one-handed viewing.

I had not realised this, but yesterday, on my evening walk with the dog, I experienced it: nothing short of a revelation. It was 19:40 h and the sun was 14 º above the horizon (I checked it with an astronomical app). In layman's terms, this is about the moment when, even while wearing a baseball cap, the sun starts to hit you in the eyes if you look towards the West with the head "levelled" (not looking upwards or downwards), the light starts to creep behind the bill/visor of the cap. So, a pretty demanding test for any binoculars. I did a series of tests looking straight in the direction of the Sun at different heights, from low bushes, to vines or the branches of carob trees and power lines. The result was simply mind-blowing: the level of contrast was amazing, almost intact. In fact, even if I tried hard, it was difficult to produce any glare; I had to really to dangerous stuff to induce a small crescent of light. One of the best (if not the best) performing compact binocular in this area that I have tried (many 8x30-32 really struggle here). I must say this little 8x20 is growing on me.

My only constant gripe with these is their FOV, especially considering it's an IS (which somehow changes your demands and expectations). Usually (at least for me), 8x has several advantages over 10x:

• Bigger FOV (let's say 7,5-8º vs 6-6,5º average).
• Steadier view, more pleasurable, less "nervous" view.
• Bigger depth of field (less focusing).

But when we introduce IS in the equation "steadier view" disappears, so the problem with FOV becomes more prominent. The 8x20 has 6,6º, while the 10x32 IS (and the 10x30 IS II before) have 6º, a minimal difference considering AFOV and the fact that both would be equally stable (unlike in "conventional" 8x vs 10x). So, for me at least, I'd rather have an IS 10x with the same FOV as an 8x IS, even if this 8x20 shows at least the same level of detail as a non-IS 10x (which makes me think that an 10x IS could show at least the same level of detail as a non-IS 12x, and so forth).

Many thanks (as always) for your write-ups, yarrelli. Just a quick question - when comparing detail/resolution between your 8x20 and the non-stabilized binoculars, were the latter used completely free-hand or did you do some tests in which the non-stabilized binos were supported (eg. elbows braced on your knees or a suitable surface)? From my experience of trying IS binoculars I'm sure the IS would still win out, but it would be interesting to have your sense of how much advantage the IS gives you when non-stabilized binoculars are steadied.

I'm still beginning to assess them, so take everything with a grain of salt (many details only appear after months of use), but while doing my first tests (completely unscientific, simply reading car plates and text from a distance) I was at home (so, no walking involved, thus a low heart rate) and leaning against the wall in my balcony, trying to get as stable as posible with non-IS binoculars. I'd say that, had I been walking, the difference would have been way more pronounced, especially with the non-IS 10x, that would have suffered more the tremors of pulse/hear rate and lost some resolution.

I enjoy reading the detailed tests with controlled conditions (as close to scientific method as possible), and I find they offer an invaluable information to get an idea of the performance of a certain device, but what I do is a completely unscientific and personal/subjectiv assessment of "real use" hand holding them. So, in a "steady handhold test" (sitting at home or leaning against a wall), the IS was superior. My understanding is that if used while walking (let alone trekking, the way I use my 8x32 many times), the difference would have been more. In fact, that's what amazes me of the 12x36 IS III. While on the go, I can get a much more stable view with a 12x than with a 8x (this makes my mind explode).

 

[Patudo]

Do you know Kimmo's comparison of the resolution of the Nikon 10x42 SE and the Canon 10x42 IS? Makes fascinating reading: Canon 10x42 IS L Tripod vs hand-held vs IS testing

I've also got both the Nikon and the Canon, and I fully concur with Kimmo's results.

Hermann

Hi - yes, I've read kabsetz's comparison between the two (my thanks to kabsetz for taking the time and trouble to carry out the tests and to write them up!). I certainly would like to be able to make that kind of side by side comparison - it really would be interesting. From memory (which admittedly may be imperfect) I thought the Canon when used unstabilized was bright and sharp but appeared slightly behind in both departments (at least to my eyes) compared to the alpha class products - which, to be fair, is what one might expect given their relative prices. Colour rendition also seemed a little more pleasing in the alphas. From what I saw the IS-L (unstabilized) seemed to most closely comparable in terms of unstabilized image quality with the Meostar HD/Conquest HD/Monarch HG class of binocular, which are of course very good in their own right. I feel the 10x42 SE has more alpha-like colour rendition (reminding me of the 10x42 Meostar HD) but you do notice the narrower field of view and I also think apparent sharpness is very slightly behind the best alphas ie. 8.5x42 SV. I'd also agree with kabsetz that the SE is not the easiest binocular for me to hold steady - roof binoculars are definitely easier for me in that respect.

Of course when you press the magic button the way the Canon image settles into nearly perfect stillness is really quite dramatic, and places the 10x42 IS-L into a category all by itself. There's nothing quite like it, and for certain tasks (not just reading text at long distances - I mean actual field use) it clearly excels any other binocular. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for my wallet) the great majority of viewing I do now can be managed with the binoculars I now own and in some respects, such as scanning high up in the sky, a lighter binocular is more pleasant to use. I would still like to own a 10x42 IS-L for the most challenging situations, but it isn't necessary - for now anyway.

I'd be interested to hear your experiences of how IS advantages you in the birding you do. I would imagine it has the most value when trying to identify unfamiliar or difficult birds, where the very settled image lets you distinguish subtle field marks and other features. Would you say an IS binocular allows you to consistently identify or find birds more quickly, from further away, and/or against more difficult backgrounds than a conventional binocular, and if you could roughly estimate the improvement in effectiveness, what would you say it is - 20%, 25%, 50% or more?

Best regards
patudo

 

[Hermann]

From memory (which admittedly may be imperfect) I thought the Canon when used unstabilized was bright and sharp but appeared slightly behind in both departments (at least to my eyes) compared to the alpha class products - which, to be fair, is what one might expect given their relative prices. Colour rendition also seemed a little more pleasing in the alphas. From what I saw the IS-L (unstabilized) seemed to most closely comparable in terms of unstabilized image quality with the Meostar HD/Conquest HD/Monarch HG class of binocular, which are of course very good in their own right.

My impressions are different. Leaving aside colour rendition, which is, after all, highly subjective, for a moment, there are several properties where the Canon excels, even when compared to the top alphas. For instance, I find it's almost immune against glare/veiling glare, and quite a lot better than the majority of roofs.

I'd also agree with kabsetz that the SE is not the easiest binocular for me to hold steady - roof binoculars are definitely easier for me in that respect.

I actually find (slim) porros like the 10x42 SE or the Habicht 40mm models easier to hold steady than roofs. Go figure.

I'd be interested to hear your experiences of how IS advantages you in the birding you do. I would imagine it has the most value when trying to identify unfamiliar or difficult birds, where the very settled image lets you distinguish subtle field marks and other features. Would you say an IS binocular allows you to consistently identify or find birds more quickly, from further away, and/or against more difficult backgrounds than a conventional binocular, and if you could roughly estimate the improvement in effectiveness, what would you say it is - 20%, 25%, 50% or more?

Interesting question. I'm afraid I'll need a lot more experience in the field to come up with a meaningful answer, so that's going to take a few more weeks at least. I'll try to do a thorough review of the Canon once I got to know it better, probably after this summer's trip to Norway. However, I find the Canon isn't a "fast" binocular, with its weight and its slow focuser I find it "slower" than many of the modern roofs. I find it's probably less suited to the rough and tumble of birding in the bushes at a major migration site, for instance.

By the way, I think it's not just the "effectiveness" in identifying birds that matters, it's also that I find I often don't have to switch to a scope to get an ID. That can be quite an advantage, especially when there's a lot going on with birds passing though all the time. Plus the view through the Canon is often more "aesthetic" than through a conventional binocular; I find I can enjoy the view more simply because the image is stable once you push the button.

Hermann

 

[etudiant]

Hi -
I'd be interested to hear your experiences of how IS advantages you in the birding you do. I would imagine it has the most value when trying to identify unfamiliar or difficult birds, where the very settled image lets you distinguish subtle field marks and other features. Would you say an IS binocular allows you to consistently identify or find birds more quickly, from further away, and/or against more difficult backgrounds than a conventional binocular, and if you could roughly estimate the improvement in effectiveness, what would you say it is - 20%, 25%, 50% or more?

Best regards
patudo

For me, the benefit of IS is greatest on windy days, when everything is moving. The IS eliminates the involuntary jitter created by the observer.
That makes it much easier to pick out the bird motion in the tree tops from the wind motion. Properly seeing birds in flight is also much easier with IS.
But even a cooperative bird will be seen much better with the IS on, the view is much more relaxed when the jitter is gone.

 

[yarrellii]

I'd be interested to hear your experiences of how IS advantages you in the birding you do. I would imagine it has the most value when trying to identify unfamiliar or difficult birds, where the very settled image lets you distinguish subtle field marks and other features. Would you say an IS binocular allows you to consistently identify or find birds more quickly, from further away, and/or against more difficult backgrounds than a conventional binocular, and if you could roughly estimate the improvement in effectiveness, what would you say it is - 20%, 25%, 50% or more?

For me, IS introduces certain distinct characteristics that set them apart from "conventional" (non-IS) binoculars. Given their several quirks (in many cases lack of waterproofing, larger size, need for batteries, quirky ergonomics, etc.) one has to be pretty sure IS binoculars would work for them. And then there's a thing. One of the limiting factors when using non-IS binoculars is tremor. Many people don't like 10x because they cannot hold them steady enough compared to 8x. And then you find a 10x you can hold as steady (actually steadier) than a 8x... heck, you can even use a 12x that you can hold steadier than a 8x. This kind of breaks some of the rules we used to have to measure and compare binoculars.

This takes me to a small digression. Currently I'm using a 6,6º FOV 8x20 IS... but thinking about what I just wrote above (tremor/shake don't count), a 6º 10x IS sounds like a way better proposal. Once shake/tremor is taken off the equation, you can think differently.

So, trying to answer Patudo's question with regular binoculars, I think it would be fair to compair 8x to 8x, 10x to 10x. However, since you can hold an 8x and a 12x IS to a very similar standard of "steadiness", it's only FOV that matters... plus obviously the magnification factor, which can be quite dramatic when it comes to IS.

Last Easter holidays I visited some wetland areas in central Spain. There were many opportunities where the 12x IS was able to allow ID when the 8x of my friends just struggled. I remember trying to ID some terns that were flying nearby. It was midday and the scorching Sun made some of the features less visible. My friends could not make up the colour of the beak, while I could clearly see it was the red beak of a whiskered tern. And I'm talking about following the really fast flight and direction changes of the tern above the surface of the water (where theoretically the wider FOV of the 8x would have been an advantage). I've had several similar experiences using the 12x36 IS III. Really impressive.

As a last note, I'd say that my impression when using IS is that, given the calm an steady view, the IS invite you not only to look at the bird but to study it in detail, to go through every single feature and detail, to take in all the little nuances. I think it's an invaluable tool for someone trying to learn about birds. As a matter of fact, I think these 12x36 are the binoculars I wish I had when I started looking at birds, since they would have allowed more detailed and informed observations.

 

[kabsetz]

^ Good post!

 

[yarrellii]

As promised, I'm investigating the 6º 10x30 as an alternative to the 6,6º 8x20, given the nearly identical FOV and that shaking/tremor is a non-issue with IS, it looks as if a 10x30 could be an alternative.
Yes, the 8x20 is smaller and lighter. But... how smaller?



Side by side, the 12x36 IS III dwarfs both the 10x30 IS II and the 8x20 IS. In fact, it looks as if these two had more in common, even though the main body of the 10x30 is actually shared with the 12x36. Weightwise there's something interesting. The 10x30 feels "denser" than the 12x36, being only 60 g lighter, but way more compact. It's 600 g vs 660 g (the small 8x20 being just 430 g).

Now take a 8x32 EL SV (not the smallest 8x32, neither the biggest/heaviest either).



Twist the eyecup up, and the 8x32 EL is as tall as the 10x30; twist it down, and it's as short as the 8x20 (actually a little shorter). That is to say, that the height of the 10x30 in relationship to the 8x20 is not that far off. I've been pleasantly surprised by how compact the 10x30 are. So much so, that they fit (a snug fit) in the case of the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 that I use for all my compacts.

I still haven't had the time to check the optical performance of the 10x30 compared to the 8x20, but first impression is that the 10x30 falls "more naturally" in the hands than the 12x36, and the finger rests more instinctively on the IS button.

Playing with the 10x30, enjoying how compact it is, I just wonder why Canon had to go the 10x32 way, making a bigger and heavier device. Maybe (just guessing) they wanted to simplify their range while giving a wider choice in the lower objective sizes.
Before they had: 8x25, 10x30 and 12x36 (before going up to the x42, x50, etc.)
Now they have: 8x20, 10x20, 10x32, 12x32 and 14x32.
So, before they had 3 different objective sizes and different sizes for just 3 options (although the bigger two shared the same central body unit).
Now they can offer 5 different configurations with just 2 objective sizes and 2 bodies. I guess this makes production cheaper and easier, isn't it?

 

[Pepitogrillo]

Hello,
thanks for this very interesting thread.
I was thinking of purchasing the Canon IS 8x20...but they have offered me a Swarovski habicht 8x30 binocular at a lower price than usual because it is used, and I am in doubt which one can offer a better image...has anyone been able to use both?
Thanks in advance.
PG.

 

[Canip]

… and I am in doubt which one can offer a better image...

What is a „better image“?

 

[Pepitogrillo]

Yes, it's true, it can be a difficult term to understand... but I think there are people in this forum who may understand it.
I'll keep waiting...

 

[yarrellii]

@Pepitogrillo
The Habicht 8x30 and the Canon 8x20 IS are distinctively different devices. Both offer something unique, but in different ways. I'd say that both devices are like planets with huge orbits, that are a bit off the centre of the system, and thus are "niche products", not appealing to the majority. Or at least, with some drawbacks that could make many people not consider them.

As a general idea, I'd say that if you want to have any of those as your only device (or as your main binoculars) you really definitely should try them both (ideally side by side). I've had them both and like a lot some of the features they offer.

- The 8x30 Habicht are a thing to behold. The view is intoxicatingly sharp, seriously. So bright, so sharp, it's surreal. But then, it has serious drawbacks (especially as a birding pair of binoculars). The focus action is really hard (for me, this excludes them as a pure birding tool), they're prone to glare, I personally found eye comfort not the best, the eyecups are narrow. And there's a very important thing to note: this is a long-standing model, so make sure you get a model with the latest coatings. I've had a 2018 and a 2010 model Habicht and I found the 2018 much sharper and brighter, probably due to improved coatings.

- The Canon 8x20 IS is a bit of an oddity. It's one of the lightest IS binoculars around (if not actually the lightest), but it's pretty thick and chunky. It's special, you can like or hate the ergonomics. It can outperform non-IS binoculars when it comes to ID and detail, the image quality is very nice, with amazing behaviour against veiling, it's amazing. But the 20 mm objectives have their obvious limitations. Then, the FOV is not very wide, they're not weatherproof, need batteries and are not as resistant, which are common drawbacks of some IS.

So, I would probably not consider any of the above as my "only" or main birding binoculars (YMMV). If you have another main pair and you want something else to compliment it, then they could fill a specific gap... and you might well discover that you just love them, who knows.

 

[Pepitogrillo]

Yarrelli,
Thank you very much for your comments on these two binoculars.
They give me the option to try the swarovski, and I will. They speak wonders of this one.
I know the IS system since a friend has the old Canon 12x36 and I have tried it many times, the sensation is very special even though it looks like a shoebox... but 12x stabilized is something fantastic..
Thanks again,
PG.